The New York Times – flagship publication of liberal elitist snobs (and water carriers for the Regime) – has come up with a novel explanation for the catastrophic number of murders occurring on the streets of Chicago: It’s the rest of the country’s fault.
Well, at least the part of the country that honors the Constitution and its Second Amendment, anyway.
Aside from the worn-out liberal tactic of blaming anyone and everyone but those who are responsible (especially when unfortunate reality flies in the face of stubborn ideology), the NYT’s rationale is flawed and ridiculous – but we’ll get to that in a minute.
In the meantime, let’s get back to the NYT’s explantion of the Windy City carnage:
Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban.
Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.
And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl [last] Tuesday.
Let me jump in here for a second. Could it be at least partially because Chicago’s law-abiding citizens aren’t allowed to carry guns and defend themselves? Of course, not:
Chicago’s experience reveals the complications inherent in carrying out local gun laws around the nation. Less restrictive laws in neighboring communities and states not only make guns easy to obtain nearby, but layers of differing laws – local and state – make it difficult to police violations.
And though many describe the local and state gun laws here as relatively stringent, penalties for violating them – from jail time to fines – have not proven as severe as they are in some other places, reducing the incentive to comply.
“Chicago is not an island,” said David Spielfogel, senior adviser to [Mayor Rahm “Dead Fish”] Emanuel. “We’re only as strong as the weakest gun law in surrounding states.”
Okay, this is a perfect time to get back to the NYT’s flawed logic, which we can do rather efficiently with a series of questions:
1. Heroin is not available in “surrounding areas.” Yet, it is arguably the most pervasive and devastating drug available in America today – including in upper-class neighborhoods. Why is that? (Demand, ingenuity and money to be made.)
2. I grew up in northwest Indiana (less than 30 minutes from downtown Chicago), where most guns are legal. My hometown and the surrounding communities have virtually no gun-violence. Why is that? (Demographics.)
3. Prohibition outlawed the production and consumption of alcohol in America from 1920 t0 1933. Yet, the illegal production of alcohol production and consumption (speakeasies and such) flourished during the entire period. Why was that? (Where there’s demand, supply follows.)
4. Assuming that the production and ownership of all firearms were made illegal in America, what are the chances that guns would be smuggled into the country – for the exact same reason that heroin, cocaine and marijuna are smuggled into the country? (100%)
5. Whom would be the target market of illegally-imported guns? (Criminals and criminal wannabes.)
6. What would be the success rate of criminals and criminal-wannabes who want to acquire illegally imported guns? (See: Heroin.)
Nuff said, loons – although, I’d be happy to entertain your knee-jerk questions and desperate rebuttals.
By the way, O’s fellow Chicago political hack, David Axelrod, was the first to postulate this ridiculous theory – but I chose to ignore as much in this article because he is nothing more than an embarrassing mouthpiece for the Regime.
Oh – wait – so is The New York Times. Never mind.